Evaluating the well-being of public library workers

Abstract

This study aimed to develop and pilot a questionnaire to determine the ways in which working in a UK public library system can impact the well-being of those deployed in the sector. The methodological framework was based on an approach used to evaluate the well-being of patients in a clinical setting. Based on the responses of 466 employees, the results identified eight dimensions of library worker well-being; organizational, advancement, job design aspects, physical health, psychological health, interpersonal relationships, workload and facilities. Analyses indicated that organizational aspects most impaired well-being and longer-serving employees were worst affected. The findings offer a new, evidence-based perspective on the well-being issues that public library workers perceive to be most important and challenge earlier claims regarding stress and burnout. Also considered is the relevance of employer-sponsored wellness programmes where improvement in organizational performance is the prime reason behind provision.

Wellbeing measures for workers: a systematic review and methodological quality appraisal

“…Eight of these studies developed instruments with relatively heterogeneous samples of workers from a range of industries and across the country of interest ( 49 – 51 , 55 , 58 , 60 – 62 ). Eight studies developed instruments in well-defined populations in well-defined settings, such as nurses within a specific medical center ( 48 ); staff at a university ( 56 , 63 ); staff at a school or within a specific school system ( 53 , 54 ); social workers undertaking a specific course ( 57 ); staff working in a library service in southern England ( 52 ); and employees of one specific online company with a global presence ( 47 ). Porath and Hyett ( 59 ) report a series of different studies for different measurement properties, with different samples ranging from factory workers to executives.…”

“…Of the 18 articles, only four explicitly stated that a pilot test was conducted with the target population to check item comprehensiveness and comprehensibility ( 52 , 59 , 60 , 63 ). Conducting a pilot test in the target population (workers or employees) is one of the standards for rating an instrument development study as “Very Good” as opposed to “Inadequate.” These four studies were then assessed according to the extent to which they met the remaining standards for PROM development methodological quality ( 19 , 21 , 24 ).…”

“…Conducting a pilot test in the target population (workers or employees) is one of the standards for rating an instrument development study as “Very Good” as opposed to “Inadequate.” These four studies were then assessed according to the extent to which they met the remaining standards for PROM development methodological quality ( 19 , 21 , 24 ). Juniper et al ( 52 ) did not specify the sample size used for the pilot study (i.e., stating only that “ The questionnaire was pre-tested with a number of library staff to ensure content and instructions were clear .”; p. 110), and so overall the methodological quality of this PROM development study is rates as “Doubtful.” Porath et al's ( 59 ) pilot study for comprehensiveness/clarity employed an adequate methodology but a sample size of only 30, so instrument development was rated as “Doubtful.” Pradhan and Hati ( 60 ) also reported both eliciting concepts through interviews and testing items for clarity and comprehensiveness in an adequate sample from the target population, and so was rated as “Very Good.” Zhou and Parmanto ( 63 ) development of the Pitt Wellness Scale was rated as “Very Good,” given its detailed methodology and description of the pilot testing process, and the samples used in these processes.…”

“…Of the 18 studies that developed new instruments, one [Butler and Kern ( 47 )] was excluded from our evaluation of structural validity because a mixed sample of employed and unemployed participants were used for the study of this specific measurement property. Of the 17 included studies that were evaluated for this measurement property, three were rated as “Inadequate,” four as “Doubtful,” three as “Adequate,” and seven as “Very Good.” The three studies evaluated as “Inadequate” included Juniper et al ( 52 ), who did not use factor analysis as a method; and Kern et al ( 54 ) and Parker and Hyett ( 58 ), whose sample size was less than five times the number of items. A common reason for the “Doubtful” ratings included failure to use separate samples for the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis stages ( 49 , 51 , 60 , 63 ).…”

Questions learned: Considering geocultural context within public librarian professional development

“…When the Philadelphia Librarians' Group began in 2009, librarians entered the group feeling weary, bitter, disillusioned, burned out, overworked, misunderstood, and underappreciated. Indeed, established LIS research talks about the challenges of public librarians in isolated branch locations (rural, small city, and large urban systems), where burnout syndrome is common in public library service (Caputo, 1991;Scheiner, 1996;Dickinson et al, 2005;Juniper et al, 2012;Lindén et al, 2018). Five years later, in 2014, the Philadelphia group continued to regularly meet to study their professional practices together for professional development.…”